THE HOUSE OF GOD (3)
[p. 437] THE HOUSE OF GOD (3)
Hebrews 3: 1 - 6; Hebrews 10: 19 - 22; 1 Chronicles 22: 1 - 10
JT In continuing the subject of the house of God, we might on this occasion consider Christ in relation to it. I suppose the Lord is over the house as Son on God’s side, and as Priest on our side. I thought the passage in Chronicles would help to set out the truth in this connection, because it introduces Solomon in a very peculiar way, and the reference to it in Hebrews 1 shows it was Christ who was in view. “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”. What marked Solomon was that he was a man of rest.
WCR The house seems to suggest rest more than the tabernacle. The tabernacle was a question of movement. Is that your thought?
JT Yes, the house as built by Solomon suggests the end of God’s ways having been reached.
FL I suppose we can always look for the moral side of things and always be sure of finding it. I was thinking the house was really to take character in a way from the man. David, as a man who had shed much blood, a man of warfare and strife, was not the one to put impress or character upon the house. It was the man of rest and the man who expresses peace.
JT That was what I thought we might be occupied with at this time, the character that Christ gives to it as Son.
FL Would you say that Moses could scarcely give character to the house being but a servant over it, while Christ, being the Son, really imparts the character to the house of God? I suppose that is the contrast here in Hebrews.
JT Yes, Christ is the Builder really, and it is,
[p. 438] in a sense, His own house, while Moses was a servant in a house not his own.
JCS So a Son over His house indicates really that the light shining in the house is to govern the house, and He as Builder of the house of God builds in the kind of material found in Himself morally.
JT Yes. The Son, being over it, imparts liberty to the house. Of course, it is to be observed that this passage in Hebrews 3 is not to introduce the subject of the house; the latter is really brought in incidentally. The main thought is to introduce the greatness of Christ, the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, but the reference to the house and Christ as Son over it helps greatly in the understanding of the truth of the house; it is built by the Son and He is over it in that character.
FL The suggestion of liberty at once raises the contrast with the tabernacle or temple, for Aaron could not have gone freely at all times in and out of the holiest. Now with regard to Christ evidently the liberty is established there. The Apostle and Priest belongs to the place and the liberty is in going “in and out”, and so those who are of His order have the liberty of the place.
RSS The opening of this epistle indicates the light into which God proposes to bring man; He surrounds Himself with men who are like Christ, and Christ being Son over God’s house, the people of God are permitted to go right into the brightest spot, in contrast to an exclusive family set out in Aaron, who indeed did not have this liberty.
JT Yes, I think the connection in which Solomon stands to the house in the Old Testament affords great help as to it, because it is said of him at his birth that Jehovah loved him; 2 Samuel 12: 24.
EHT Is your thought that the principal characteristic of the house would be love?
JT Yes, it is not built by a military man. A [p. 439] military man would build from his own point of view, but of Solomon it is said in Proverbs 4: 3, “I was my father’s son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother”. He was brought up and nourished in parental affections. Not only did his father love him, but his mother loved him; that is, he was brought up in that atmosphere of affection, so in building a house he would be qualified to give expression to love, for the house is the family sphere, the sphere in which love is to be reciprocated. There is parental or descending love, as well as ascending love, and then too what you might say horizontal love, the love of the brethren. Solomon would be eminently fitted to take account of all these things and would prepare the house accordingly. He knew a father’s love; he knew a mother’s love.
CB It is only a man of peace who could take account of these things.
JT Also a man of love. He is beloved in the eyes of his father and his mother.
RSS It says in connection with the birth of Solomon that Bathsheba “bare a son, and he (David) called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him. And he sent by the band of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the Lord”. The meaning of the word Jedidiah is, “Beloved of the Lord”.
JT So “Solomon” is a man of rest, and “Jedidiah” is a loved one. Then the fact that Christ was in view gives this passage in 1 Chronicles, or the corresponding passage in 2 Samuel, a connection with Hebrews 1: 5, “I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son”. That is the man that builds the house.
BTF Would you say that Solomon anticipated the words of our Lord, when He said, “in my Father’s house are many mansions”; so that in the building of the temple there was a foreshadowing of [p. 440] that?
JT Yes, the answer to 1 Kings 6 is the Father’s house; that is, the holiest and holy place could be thrown together; there is no veil in 1 Kings, neither is the altar in evidence. It is more a sphere for God to express His affections in and to surround Himself with those He loved, hence you have chambers and folding doors.
WB-s Is it the home life that fits a person to have any place in the house of God? I refer to one’s government of his own house? Ruling his own house well qualifies him to have a place of service in God’s house. In speaking of Solomon we have been saying his home life was of a certain character that qualified him for taking charge of the house of God.
JT He was qualified by the love of his father and the love of his mother. Solomon coming in, in place of the child taken away in judgment, constituted him all the more important in their eyes, and especially as he was marked out by Jehovah Himself by prophetic testimony as a loved one.
WB-s Timothy himself was a special vessel; it was to him Paul wrote in connection with the house and he was brought up under the influence of a believing mother.
JT He appears in the Acts after Barnabas had left Paul, and the whole of Acts 16, which tells us of Timothy’s introduction into Paul’s circle, treats of households. There is nothing said about the assembly at Philippi, but a great deal said about households and brethren, as if to suggest that Timothy was the product of home affections governed by faith; for we may have affections without the faith, and all such affections are not pure, but family affections governed by faith are pure and holy. So Timothy coming from a home, from a mother and a grandmother, who had faith, heads the subject in Acts 16, then Lydia follows and then the jailor. The subject is largely households.
[p. 441] FL And then the brethren.
RSS And why not the assembly? Why is it omitted?
JT I think the point was to show what is operative in the households of the brethren. It was the manner in which the truth of the gospel was introduced into Europe, into the western world. The ecclesiastical side is not prominent, but rather the family side.
FL And that continues, I suppose, through Thessalonica, Athens, etc., until Paul settles down for longer periods, first in Corinth and afterwards in Ephesus, and it is then what you may call assembly work. I mean it seems to follow on in that way.
JT Quite, the assembly comes then into evidence, but Philippi, being the gateway into Europe, spiritually, at least, is marked by family affection.
FL I am interested in the suggestions that have come out in regard to Moses and Solomon. Moses, as servant in God’s house, receives the pattern of the tabernacle from heaven, but with regard to Solomon’s house, Solomon seems to come more distinctively as representative of Christ, and therefore the pattern is not given from heaven, but it rather takes character from one of whom God says, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son”, and so the house is developed on the lines of which you have been speaking. It takes the impress of that Man. The house of God now takes the impress of Christ.
JT Yes, so you could scarcely think of the Son building by pattern. Pattern is for the workman. The Son is God Himself, as Hebrews shows.
FL I think it is very helpful to see that the house of God has the impress of the Man.
JCS So with Solomon it was not the commandment of the Lord, as with Moses, and I judge in that way Christ knew entirely what was suitable to [p. 442] God and builds what is absolutely pleasurable to Him, transmitting His own moral qualities to it.
JT I think that is it. It was quite true that David received, by the Spirit, the pattern of the house, but there is nothing said about Solomon using a pattern. The record is what he did, and we can understand that what the Son does is according to the Father’s mind, but He does it of Himself “Upon this rock I will build my assembly”. It is not exactly the house there, but it is the same thought.
JT Yes. “On this rock I will build my assembly”. You are very conscious of the dignity of the Person doing it. He is not working as a fellow-workman; nor as an employed man, He is doing it of Himself.
RSS And speaking of it as “my assembly” rather suggests the thought that it takes character from Him?
JCS The house in Hebrews is purely a spiritual idea. In what way do you connect that with the thought of being qualified to take a place in that house, in the way of government, etc.?
JT I think 1 Timothy furnishes us with that instruction.
JCS I was wondering whether Hebrews presents the house in relation to the pleasure of God: whereas in Timothy it is the house in its bearing toward men; and looking at it as viewed in the epistle to the Hebrews I do not think we can conceive the idea of disorder or discipline.
JT Well, it is introduced really incidentally in both instances in Hebrews; but the truth in regard of it is not worked out there. It is introduced incidentally in chapter 3 and again in chapter 10, “and having a great priest over the house of God”, but the connection of the Lord with it in each case shows the character, first, what he is from God in it as Son, and then what He is from man’s side as [p. 443] Priest. I do not think we get more than His relation to it in Hebrews. We would have to go elsewhere to find how it is worked out practically, but the fact that He is from God’s side Son over it lends a wonderful lustre, and liberty and blessedness to it, because of what He is as Son in that relation. On the other hand, if I draw near to God it is an immense thing to know that we have a Great Priest there, One who is capable of sympathy, and thus able to support us in our souls in drawing near to God. The first, Hebrews 3, is what God is to us in the house, and so one would go to 1 Kings 6, as I said, for the enlargement of this thought, because it shows you that God would put Himself in touch with man by the folding doors, as if He would throw all together that there might be no distance or reserve; that all should be together happily and freely before God.
JCS So that the house as builded by the Son would have more the interior in view, rather than the exterior, the interior suggesting rest and liberty.
JT Yes, whereas 2 Chronicles would perhaps correspond more with Hebrews 10 where you have a veil and an altar; that is, in approaching, God finds no room for the flesh, and we need all the things that are spoken of in that chapter: we have boldness for entering, and we have a great high Priest. The things are supplied and it is for us to avail ourselves of what is supplied in order to draw near. But chapter 3 suggests as I have said what the house is from God’s side, and how He will display Himself in it.
JCS John 8 says, “If the Son therefore shall make you free ye shall be free indeed”. That is in the house, is it not.
JT Yes, quite.
FL In Matthew 17, when the question of the tribute was raised, the Lord expressed to Peter that the children are free; “then are the sons free”.
RSS What is the difference between the house as we are speaking of it now and what we get in Hebrews 8, the sanctuary and the true tabernacle. You were alluding to Exodus 15, and there it speaks of both His holy habitation and the sanctuary. What is the distinction between these and also the thought of the tabernacle?
JT I think the idea of a sanctuary is that it is a sanctified place. It is a place in which God has surrounded Himself with that which excludes the flesh and sin in every way, “thy holy habitation” or “the abode of thy holiness” referred, I suppose, to the tabernacle, which is the pattern of things in the heavens, indeed of the universal system; and therefore it represents a different thought from the sanctuary. When you think of the sanctuary it is a question of where God is to be approached; that is, you must approach in accord with what He is, but when you think of the tabernacle it is not approach, but display, His coming out. Of course the tabernacle was the sanctuary; I refer to the thought in each only.
RSS Yes, so the tabernacle and God’s house would largely correspond.
JT Generally speaking, the thought of the sanctuary is, that it is a sanctified place, and then if you have to say to God in it you must be in accord with it.
CB We get to understand things there. Asaph said he understood the end of the wicked when he got into the sanctuary; Psalm 73: 17.
JCS Are there two ideas connected with the sanctuary? On one hand the way into the holiest was made manifest and there is boldness to go in, and on the other hand the sanctuary was the place of divine service, where the priests served at the golden altar.
JT I think the word sanctuary would take in [p. 445] the holy and the most holy place, but generally speaking it signifies a holy place, a sanctified place, and if we are to draw near to God in it we must be in accord with God. I think that is in view in chapter 10, so that if you think of the holiness of the place, then you have provision to meet that. Hence having boldness by the blood of Jesus and having a great priest, the worshipper is furnished in view of entering into the holiest. The thought of the sanctuary in chapter 8 is more general, referring to that in which Christ’s ministry is exercised.
RSS You find the Lord as Son over God’s house contrasted with Moses, whereas when you come to the sanctuary, it is Aaron, is it not, that is in contrast?
JT Quite.
RSS And Moses was rather on God’s side manward, whereas Aaron, the high priest, was from man’s side Godward.
BTF Then there are two thoughts in what is before us: Christ as Builder and Christ as Priest.
JT Yes; in chapter 3 it is what He is from God’s side, and in chapter 10 on our side, so, as has been remarked, Solomon is a type of Christ as Son as seen in chapter 3.
WB-t Would you say a little more about David being a military man, having part in the things carried out in Zion, where walls and bulwarks are spoken of and Solomon being a man of peace.
JT I think you can see how Solomon would work on lines of affection. He was not concerned so much in his reign about bulwarks and military array, although, of course, he had an army and all that, but the military side is in David. I am speaking of the spiritual thoughts presented. Solomon is free. What one sees is that to develop the truth of the assembly from tire side of privilege we have to be free from a sense of opposition and controversy.
That is, “neither adversary nor evil occurrent”. This is essential to the development of the truth of the house of God.
WB-s Would we get the thought in principle in Acts 9? It says, “Then had the churches rest ... ... . and were edified and walking in the fear of the Lord ... ... were multiplied”.
JT That is how it works, but what you see in Christ is that He disposed of all enemies first in a military sense. He laid every opposing element low through His death; then during the forty days of His sojourn here after He arose He adjusted the disciples. He laboured during this period at the material in a positive way, with a view to the establishment of that in which affection should be active. Now in Acts 9, Saul championed opposition to this. Satan had again set up his opposition to Christ and Saul entered into every house; he invaded the spheres in which affection really would flow, and dragging out men and women, the believers, he committed them to prison. He would destroy the assembly; that is what the enemy would do. He would destroy the sphere of affection, and so he set out with the mission from Damascus, “breathing out”, it says, “threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord”. But the Lord met him. He is still Lord today. He still exercises, so to speak, the David service, but it is all with a view to preserving that in which love is. I believe that is the great point to get hold of. We must preserve that in which love is to be free, and the kingdom is for that. So throughout Acts 9 it is the Lord, and what He does. He meets Saul and brings him to the earth and in doing so He accomplished perhaps the most remarkable feat you can find in the annals of Scripture; He brought down the opposition, but in bringing it down He brought in a vessel of love He brought in a man of love, and so the first service [p. 447] Paul renders is to announce that Jesus is the Son of God. He is an object of affection: He is a Solomon. And so throughout the chapter the Lord has His way. Every opposition gives way before the Lord, and then, as our brother remarked, the assemblies had rest, and were edified and multiplied; but the Lord had done it, and I think it is well to see that; and to see that all discipline and all military effort is to preserve that in which love is to be free, that is to say, where God’s love is free, and we can love one another freely. Now as the Spirit of God records the history of the testimony you will find that one thing after another happens until Paul acquires a dominant position, because Christ had found a man wholly in sympathy with His own heart. And so, as Barnabas and Saul set out on their mission, presently Saul is signalised by a miracle, and soon takes the lead. Elymas the sorcerer, who opposed the testimony is made blind for a season, representing, I suppose, the Jews. They are rendered blind for a season, and then we have a most remarkable expression in chapter 13: 13. “And having sailed from Paphos, Paul and his company came to Perga of Pamphylia; and John separated from them and returned to Jerusalem”. It shows how the Spirit of God brought the apostle into prominence; and now it is not simply “their own company” but “Paul and his company”; that is the company now.
RSS You spoke of his reaching a dominant position. He never sought it, however.
JT Before this is said of him, it is said, “Who also is called Paul”. His name had been Saul. Paul I believe, means “little”.
RSS In the very same chapter.
JT Yes, so he is not seeking it, but he is such a qualified vessel for the house, for bringing in what is of God in Christ, as Son of God, that the Spirit [p. 448] of God is flee to give him this remarkable place; so it is “Paul and his company”.
FL So spiritual shipwreck was in separating from that company. John Mark left them and departed for Jerusalem.
JT Quite so; he left that company.
FL And later Barnabas also left.
JT So the Spirit of God, throughout the history of the testimony from this point onward, seems to give Paul the leading place; and the Lord would not be diverted from His devoted servant. Paul says in 2 Timothy, referring to his standing before the emperor, “The Lord stood with me and strengthened me, that by me the preaching might be fully known”. (2 Timothy 4: 17).
The two thoughts that we have had before us then, in connection with Christian relation to the house of God in Hebrews 3 and 10, if rightly followed, lead in the first place to the making known of God in the house, and in the second place to our approaching Him there. In the former case you act like God, so that in discipline or in your dealings on the part of God you impress others with what is Godlike. God is thus displaying Himself in His house. In the latter case in our approaching Him the Lord is on our side as Priest; “great Priest over the house of God”, and I suppose the word “great” there has to be distinguished from the word “high”. It is that He is great in the way in which He can help us and enter into our exercises. As Great Priest He leads us to approach, and supports us in it, so that as there we are like Him. One is there in accord with the Great Priest and therefore not conscious of any disparity between oneself and God.
WHF Do we get instruction in the holiest in regard of how we are to act in the house or for service in the house?
JT We do. We learn that from the Great Priest.
WHF [p. 449] Is the holiest for us a certain light in which Christ is presented to us?
JT I think so. It has often been commented on; that it is what Christ is as Man before God, the One by whom He accomplishes all His thoughts.
WHF It has been said that we enter into the holiest individually and there we get instruction as to how we can act in the assembly. We carry the instruction into the assembly and communicate it or act on it, there. Do you go with that?
JT That is right, I think. I would like to get the thought of the Great Priest, and how one approaches, because so much depends on how we approach.
RSS The expression “Great Priest” is not in the authorised version. “Having therefore, brethren, boldness for entering into the holy of holies by the blood of Jesus, the new and living way which he has dedicated for us through the veil, that is, his flesh and having a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart”, Hebrews 10: 19 - 22. It is the thought of the greatness of the Person you said?
JT Yes, of Christ as Man.
GWH As Great Priest would He impress you as approaching, with being of Himself.
JT That is it, I think. He gives you the sense that there is no disparity between God and you, otherwise you would approach in the sense of your own littleness; but the Great Priest gives you the sense of the greatness of the line, of the order you belong to, and the nearer you get to God the more sensible you are that there is no disparity and you are made free. That is the point one would like to get clearly before us: “Having a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near”.
WB-s As to the drawing near with our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and [p. 450] our bodies washed with pure water; what is the significance of that?
JT All these requisites should be present, so that there should be no hindrance in any way to believers drawing near to God. Referring again to chapter 3, the greatness of the Apostle and High Priest is first spoken of and then the thought is added as to the house and that the saints are that house, “Whose house are we”; that is, it is brought down to a concrete thing. In this passage the house is the full presentation, answering to the tabernacle, but he brings it down to a concrete reality, that the saints are that house for the moment, we are that house provisionally but it depends on continuance. “If we hold fast the boldness and the boast of hope firm to the end”.
HG Would the thought of the great priest over the house of God suggest Christ and His ability to arrange everything finally in regard to God, and lead all the redeemed in to God, because, as you said, while the assembly is the provisional aspect of the house, I suppose it contemplates the whole universe. In that sense you get a wonderful conception of His ability Yes, and that He is a Man. It is as Man He is Priest, although founded on His sonship; but the idea of a priest is that he is capable of sympathy, and I apprehend that gives you the sense of your greatness, because you do not approach to God in your littleness. You do not approach to God saying, ‘God be merciful to us miserable sinners’ but in your relation to the Priest.
ANW That was what I meant in connection with boldness; our relation to Him as Son and Priest; see chapter 3: 6, 10, 19.
RSS The consciousness that as Great Priest he is on our side greatly encourages one.
JT It does, and what has been remarked is [p. 451] very interesting as a general presentation of the truth of the Priest over the house of God, but chapter 10 is laying it upon the saint that he should approach; at least he should have no difficulties in doing so on account of everything necessary being furnished. The furnishings are brought forward and amongst them this great fact that there is a Great Priest and that we have Him; it is not simply that He is there, but we have Him there. He is there on our account, so you have sympathy.
FL What a wonderful father Aaron would have been in his own home circle if only he himself had risen to the light of his own priesthood and brought back into his home the light and the sympathy and the atmosphere of what that priesthood meant. He was the head of the family, he would have given them his own characteristics; but he was far from being up to all this, and two of his sons broke down. Now when we transfer this to Christ as the Great Priest over the house of God, the true Aaron and His sons, as sons with Him before the Father’s face, we see truly a wonderful family.
JT Yes, and then in drawing near to God we are not simply taken “by the hand”; in bringing us out of the land of Egypt (the world) we are taken by the hand, that is, as you take a child, but it is not as little ones that we draw near to God. God’s thought is that He should be approached by men, those fully developed, and Hebrews is in order to bring that about. The Hebrew Christians were going back to the babe state, but the apostle was aiming at “full-grown men”, and so it says, “Let us draw near”; that is, you do it yourself, and lest you may have any difficulties, all these things are there, but then they are yours. It is not the Lord taking you by the hand and leading you in; He takes you by the hand to lead you out of the land of Egypt but you are led in by the heart and by the intelligence
[p. 452] and all these requisites are furnished so that you may avail yourself of your privilege. But the point is that you draw near. God wants to see you coming. Hence it says, “The Father seeketh such to worship him”; that is, those who worship “in spirit and in truth”. It is not simply a worshipping company, but individual worshippers. Each one has to come.
BTF In Hebrews 10, are you drawing near for help in the hour of need?
JT No, it is drawing near to God simply; in Hebrews 4, it is that you might obtain help.
RSS You are thinking of God.
JT So priestly function is in Christ as the Great Priest. I suppose it was the absence of this that disqualified Jacob from drawing near. He trembled. It was a “dreadful place” to him, but if our souls appropriate the blessedness of what God has placed in Christ as Great Priest over the house of God we shall not be afraid to draw near.
FL I think that is very helpful, and I am very much interested in what you say as to coming out of Egypt and coming into the land. In connection with coming out of Egypt God says, “I bare you on eagles’ wings and brought you unto myself”; but when it comes to entrance into the land, the ark and the priests are very much in evidence, and every member of the congregation is set in relation to them. Everyone in the whole camp would have his own individual place and exercise. We get none of that in coming out of Egypt, and the difference I think is well worthy of our attention, because it is men who are spiritually developed who enter into the land.
HG Mr. Raven used to say that the man of strong affections was under an immense advantage in Christianity, because Christianity was a system of affections, and, although of a different order, he could understand the principle on which God worked.
[p. 453] So I suppose, as you have been saying, it is immensely important how our spirits are maintained under the influence of Christ as Son, so as to be formed in divine affections, and that we might go in consciously in the life of that Man. He leads a people who are free in His own life, in sympathy and in affection, hence in Hebrews 10: 16, in connection with the covenant, I notice their hearts are spoken of first. In chapter 8: 10, their mind is spoken of first. One has to be intelligent in regard of the way God has come out, but in chapter 10 the affection side is presented first.
WB-t And then coming out we provoke unto love and good works; chapter 10: 24.
ANW Do we get the thought of being led in in Romans 8? “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God”.
JT I do not think that is leading in; the reference there is to what took place after the brazen serpent. Previous to that they had been led by the tabernacle; as the tabernacle moved they moved, but you get no reference to that after Numbers 21. Typically then we are led by the Spirit, and after the Holy Spirit is recognised the objective guidance is not so prominent; it is the Holy Spirit, and being led by Him and that marks us off as sons. I think God is looking for Christians drawing near, and He misses them; He was missing the Hebrew Christians. They had been drawing near to God but they were giving it up and the apostle impresses upon them the importance of drawing near to God.
HG We get here the answer to God’s original thought for the Hebrew. “Israel is my son, even my firstborn ... ... let my son go that he may serve me”, Exodus 4: 22, 23.